Laserfiche WebLink
The history of the 1974 Minnesota segment of the electric industry in with their cities. There are concerns <br />agreement was based on consensus, Minnesota. that the co-ops might attempt such an <br />fairness, and understanding: effort again. <br />The co-ops needed the 1974 service <br />territory Law in order to obtain <br />funding to build the Coal Creek <br />project, which still serves today as <br />one of their primary sources of <br />wholesale power. To secure <br />passage, they agreed to and <br />supported the municipal annexation <br />provision in the law. <br />The co-ops are poised to capture <br />much of the growth around <br />communities served by investor- <br />owned utilities, as well as around <br />those communities already served by <br />co-ops. This has been happening for <br />some time in the Twin Cities Metro <br />area, and is beginning to occur in <br />other parts of the state as well. <br />MMUA Position <br />The co-ops have enjoyed <br />tremendous growth in the years <br />since the service territory law was <br />enacted. Their growth, which has <br />largely come from the expansion <br />of cities that do not own their <br />electric service, has far outstripped <br />that of the municipal utilities. In fact, <br />co-ops represent the fastest-growing <br />The designation of electric utility ser- <br />vice territory is fundamentally a state <br />issue, fully governed by state law in <br />Minnesota and in other states. This is- <br />sue should be left to the states -there <br />is no justification for Congressional <br />involvement in the service territory <br />• In addition to enjoying their own issue. <br />rapid growth, the co-ops receive fair <br />compensation under the law when a <br />city purchases service rights <br />following annexation. <br />In the past few years some coop- <br />eratives have unsuccessfully tried <br />to secure federal legislation denying <br />municipal utilities their right to grow <br />